Memorializes the United States Congress to pass bipartisan legislation allowing for tax exclusion of amounts received from state-based catastrophe loss mitigation programs (EN NO IMPACT See Note)
The adoption of HR202 could significantly influence state laws associated with disaster-related financial assistance. If the Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act is enacted, many homeowners who benefit from state-funded disaster mitigation programs would see favorable fiscal treatment, potentially leading to reduced insurance premiums and liability. Additionally, the resolution aligns with broader goals to enhance public safety and reduce economic losses associated with disasters, thereby encouraging more robust local disaster preparedness initiatives through financial incentives.
House Resolution 202 (HR202) calls upon the United States Congress to pass the Disaster Mitigation and Tax Parity Act of 2021. This resolution advocates for allowing taxpayers to exclude payments received from state-based disaster mitigation programs from their taxable income. The Louisiana Fortify Homes Program is highlighted as a key example, as it provides grants for homeowners to upgrade their homes to withstand windstorms, thereby supporting pre-disaster mitigation efforts. HR202 expresses concern over the current disparity in federal tax treatment of state versus federally funded mitigation programs, aiming for equity in tax exclusions for both types of funding sources.
The general sentiment around HR202 is largely supportive, particularly among legislators who recognize the financial burden that disasters impose on families and communities. There is a collective acknowledgment that pre-disaster mitigation can lead to long-term economic benefits and resilience. However, the call for action also displays an undertone of urgency, reflecting concerns about ongoing disparities in how state programs are treated compared to federal ones and the potential implications of inaction on emergency preparedness funding.
While the resolution itself is relatively straightforward, there are points of contention regarding the disparities in federal tax treatment of state-based programs. Critics may argue that focusing solely on tax exclusions could divert attention from more comprehensive disaster planning and funding needs. Additionally, there is the challenge of ensuring that various states can equitably benefit from such federal actions, especially those lacking the same financial resources to implement effective disaster mitigation strategies.